CC 2018-06-12_10a Supplemental No. 1
MEMORANDUM
TO: CITY COUNCIL
FROM: TERESA McCLISH, COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIRECTOR
SUBJECT: SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION FOR AGENDA ITEM 10.A.
CONSIDERATION OF APPEAL CASE NO. 18-001; APPEAL OF
DETERMINATION RELATING TO CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT 18-001;
CONSTRUCTION OF A 1,784 SQUARE FOOT ACCESSORY DWELLING
UNIT IN THE GENERAL AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT;
LOCATION – 1212 FLORA ROAD; APPLICANT – MURAT & NANCY
AKALIN; ARCHITECT – BILL ISAMAN, ISAMAN DESIGN
DATE: JUNE 12, 2018
Attached is correspondence, including an alternate site plan, provided by the applicant to
address project issues raised at the Planning Commission public hearing.
c: City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Public Review Binder
Dear Members of the City Council, My name is Murat Akalin. My wife Nancy and I live at 1212 Flora Road. I am a family doctor and a psychiatrist. My wife is a psychologist. We serve the people of San Luis Obispo County. I serve on the Board of Directors of Hospice of SLO County. I also teach in the family medicine program at Marian Regional Medical Center, where our mission is to train primary care doctors who will establish their practices on the Central Coast. Both of us have come to love rural living. Prior to moving to San Luis Obispo, we lived on a remote ten acre horse ranch surrounded by hayfields, and the Sierra mountain range. In our time not taking care of patients, we learned to train horses, work cattle, grow vegetables, and keep chickens. Ultimately, we missed the energy of a larger community, so we decided to move to the Central Coast. After renting a 15 acre rural property for a year in SLO, we discovered Arroyo Grande, and found home. We bought the piece of property at 1212 Flora Road because it had room for our horses and chickens, and dogs and cats, and the goats that are to come. We bought it because it had a fruit orchard with room to plant more. We bought it because my parents liked it, and it had room to build a second home for them. Before buying, we did our due diligence, met with City staff, and found that a second dwelling was permissible with a Conditional Use Permit. And we bought it because it was right next to a neighborhood. We love wide-open spaces, but we are people people, and we wanted to have close connections with people around us. As we were making our decision to buy the land, we walked around, and met some of the neighbors, and we were sold. One neighbor said, referring to the Andy Griffith show, “Welcome to Mayberry”. We are appealing to the City Council to approve our Conditional Use Permit for us to build an Auxiliary Dwelling Unit on our property. What we are proposing is to build a 2-bedroom, 2-bath structure of 1784 sq feet, with a garage with space for one car and a workshop. We have proposed to locate the house at the edge of the property, in order to take advantage of the existing driveway and to maximize open space on the parcel. I would like to discuss several concerns that have been raised about the project. I will address each of them, one at a time.
#1. An ADU is not permitted on land in the agricultural zoning district.
As reported by staff in their analysis: “The proposed use is permitted within the Agricultural district pursuant to Chapter 16.28 of the Development Code and the project complies with all applicable provisions of the Development Code, the goals
and objectives of the Arroyo Grande General Plan including Policy Ag 1-4.1 of the Agriculture, Conservation, and Open Space Element and the Bicycle and Trails Master Plan, and the development policies and standards of the City.” (emphasis added)
#2. Current code allows for one residence per ten acre parcel in the agricultural
zoning district. Because our parcel is only 5 acres, the main house itself is “illegal” ,
and an Auxiliary Dwelling Unit secondary to the house should not be allowed. Our house is not ”illegal”; it is “nonconforming”. In other words, having a house on a 5-acre agricultural parcel does not conform to new code that has been enacted since the house was built. Its status as a legal lot and house is “grandfathered in”. The fact that we live on an older parcel of one house on 5 acres does not preclude the construction of an ADU under Arroyo Grande Municipal code.
#3. It’s too big. ADUs are limited to 1200 sq feet or 50% of the square footage of the
main house, whichever is smaller. From the very beginning we worked closely with City Staff on the size issue, and followed their guidance to make sure that the size was in compliance with municipal code. In residential zoning districts, ADUs are limited to 1200 square feet of 50% of the main house. In agricultural zoning districts, however, there is no size restriction to ADUs. This makes sense, because the parcels are larger in agricultural zoning districts. In our case, the proposed ADU represents eight tenths of 1% of the entire property.
#4. It’s nearly as big as the main house, so it can’t be an Auxiliary Dwelling Unit. There is no code pertaining to agricultural zoning district that specifies that an ADU should be less than some fraction of the size of the main house. Also, in our case the main house is actually substantially larger than the 1860 square feet recorded in public records. It is has an 860 square foot bonus room, bringing the actual size to 2720 square feet. This is 35% larger than the proposed ADU. #5. It can’t be an Auxiliary Dwelling Unit because it’s bigger than some of the homes in
the surrounding neighborhood. These homes are on residential zoned lots of 6000 to 8000 square feet. When compared with the five agricultural zoned parcels immediately adjacent to our property, our proposed ADU is substantially smaller than the homes on every one of them.
#6. We cannot allow this ADU because we will be “losing ag land”. To this, I reply, “No, we are not losing agricultural land. We are building a farm house on a piece of farm land.” Losing agricultural land would be rezoning the land from agricultural use to residential use. We are not doing this. Losing agricultural land would be subdividing the land into smaller parcels. We are not doing this. A proposal to subdivide a parcel adjacent to ours into five 1-acre parcels was brought before the city some years ago by the owners of the land at that time. This proposal was defeated. We would have been against it as well. The land is zoned agricultural, and this is the way we would like to keep it.
#7. We cannot allow this ADU because the land will be less usable for farming. Building a second house on this property will actually result in more farming use of the land. Families who live on agricultural parcels of this size do not often use them for agricultural purposes, because they are too small to be commercially viable. Of the other three 5-acre parcels adjoining ours, none are being used for farming, nor have they been used for farming in many years. Our neighbors on these parcels would agree that the acreage surrounding their homes is basically a huge lawn. It is important to note that one of these neighbors is Vard Ikeda, who farms for a living, and he doesn’t farm on his five acres. When people farm small parcels like this, it is generally as a hobby or side job. The farm may provide supplementary income to the owners, or it may not. If they are not retired, the owners of these small farms have jobs other than farming that pay the bills. This is our situation. I’d like to share with you our plans for the property, what we have done so far, and how this auxiliary house facilitates this plan. Since buying the property, we have removed an asphalt driveway that was dividing and taking up usable land. We have removed interior fencing, and installed perimeter fence, to encompass the full five acres as a whole. We have removed a privacy fence that was carving a backyard out of the rest of the property. Before these changes, there were approximately 3.7 acres of usable agricultural land. Now, after these changes, there are 4.5 acres of usable land (Exhibit 1). We have purchased a tractor, and used it to revitalize the pasture by tilling and seeding it with a mix of grasses for grazing livestock. We have been able to use both the north and the south aspects of the property for grazing of horses. We have used the full expanse of the property for free-ranging our chickens, whose eggs many in the neighborhood have enjoyed. We have revived the orchard, and expanded it by 20%. And we have taken on five outdoor cats to help with gopher control.
In preparing this presentation, I realized how much we have done in just over our first year. There is a lot more that can be done with these five acres, but it is going to take more than two people. As I mentioned, Nancy and I both work. But with my parents moving on the property, many things that would have been impossible suddenly become possible. My parents are in their 70s, and thankfully still in reasonably good health. My father particularly is an energizer bunny, especially when it comes to early mornings. And through us, he has discovered that he loves taking care of chickens and livestock. My mother is a wizard in the garden and the kitchen, and has always made excellent yogurts and preserves. With my parents joining us on the farm, our plans are to begin a small goat operation that they will manage. We plan to keep dairy goats, and produce milk, cheese, and yogurt. We plan to continue to expand the fruit orchard by 20% again this next year. My father is a retired engineer, and we have plans to build a solar dehydrator to preserve the fruit we produce in the orchard. And we plan to expand our flock of chickens, and add ducks. Current uses and future uses of the land are shown in Exhibit 2.
#8. The ADU will obstruct views of the surrounding trees and hills. The view certainly is beautiful. We enjoy it greatly, and we wouldn’t want to diminish the opportunity of others to enjoy it too. The discussion at Planning Commission led to a very nice collaboration with some of our neighbors through which we were able to come up with a site for the house that is even better than originally proposed. We are proposing an amendment to our application, in which the building location will be moved as far as possible to the south, to the corner of the property. This change will maximize preservation of open view across the property from the neighbors’ homes, and also from people passing by on Branch Mill Road. These neighbors were opposed to the project at the Planning Commission hearing. They are now in support of the project, and have submitted a letter to that effect. As part of this amendment we are proposing today, we are also taking the recommendation of Architectural Review Committed to clad the exterior of the house in board and batten rather than stucco.
#9. Staff are recommending to deny this appeal, so it must not be a good idea. In their report to Architectural Review Committee and Planning Commission city planning staff recommended to approve our application for Conditional Use Permit. As you know, it was denied. The vote was close. Two Commissioners voted for approval. Three voted to deny. The recommendation of City staff in regards to an appeal is required to be in agreement with the decision of Planning Commission. In other words, nothing changed to warrant a change in their recommendation, other than the Planning Commission vote. For this reason, I would like to highlight Staff findings from their original analysis:
• The proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be
established or located due to the small nature of the development and the placement of the new
building on the project site in a way that avoids the conversion of agricultural soils.
• The site is 5.08 acres, which is smaller than the minimum lot size required in the Agricultural
district, but remains suitable for the type and intensity of use since the use is planned in a way that
does not impact the ongoing light agriculture and grazing uses of the site.
#10. I understand this will result in increased farming of the land, but I just don’t
want to see another house built on agricultural land. We understand this position. We care about farm land. We care about preserving the agrarian roots of Arroyo Grande. And we also want our parents to live with us, on our land, so we can use the land together, and so that we can look after their needs as they grow old. The shortage of affordable housing and the need to create more options for seniors to age in place have been the prime motives driving the adoption of state legislation promoting Auxiliary Dwelling Units. Arroyo Grande needs more housing. We especially need more housing for seniors. Members of the City Council, this is your challenge: to balance the needs of preserving agricultural lands and creating more places for people to live, especially older people; To balance keeping things as they are against helping things to change; To meet the needs of our growing community; And to do this in as thoughtful a manner as you can. I want you to know we have given this very careful thought. We value the area, we value the land, just like the other members of this community. We have gone to great lengths to make sure we do not substantially disrupt the open space of agricultural land. In developing our little farm on five acres within the city limits of Arroyo Grande, we are returning the land to farming use. But more than that, we believe we are striking that balance between preserving agricultural lands, and creating additional housing for my parents to age in place… as well as for other members of our community to live in the future.
#11. We cannot allow this ADU to be built because it will set a precedent for ADUs to
be built on all agricultural zoned parcels. I have two responses to this. First, each and every ADU that anyone wants to build in the agricultural zoning district will have to apply for a Conditional Use Permit. And that process is a stringent one, in which the Architectural Review Committee, the Planning Commission, community members from the neighborhood, and the City
Council will all be in a position to make sure that any proposed ADU is desirable and consistent with the goals and wishes of the surrounding community. We can, and should, trust in this process. Second, even if each of the other agricultural parcels in our area were to apply for, and be granted permission to build an ADU in the years ahead, we are talking about 4 new houses spread over 20 acres. This is completely different from a typical subdivision, such as the development on East Cherry Avenue, which will put 53 homes on 10 acres. Our area is zoned agricultural. As described in the report from City planning staff, building Auxiliary Dwelling Units does not mean that area is being rezoned. In fact, the construction of ADUs on these parcels now might even make it harder for future attempts to subdivide and rezone these parcels to succeed in the future. Many years ago, the previous owners of our parcel did undertake to do some farming. Mr. Tuck Been was a retired realtor who loved his land. Over the years, he planted various crops and grazed sheep. According to his son-in-law, who still lives next door, in all of these endeavors at the end of the year he would have earned a net income of a few hundred dollars. He enjoyed it. He loved it. This is the type of endeavor we are proposing - to bring the land back into agricultural usage, not because we will earn income from doing so, but because we value using the land to grow food, because we love the rural and agricultural life. In shepherding this proposal through these public hearings, I have heard more than one person utter the phrase “AG spells Ag”. I hope that my presentation has served to make clear that we are not land developers. We have no covert plan to create a tract of residential lots and houses. “AG spells Ag” is what we are trying to achieve on these beautiful five acres, in the City of Arroyo Grande, at this unique boundary between residential and rural land. To summarize: 1) The use is permissible; 2) The size is permissible; and 3) Under our ownership, the land will be used for agricultural purposes. The project will create needed additional housing in AG, especially for senionrs; and 5) it will help seniors to age in place. 6) We have amended our proposal, based on input from the community, to locate the unit at the very corner of the property. This will maximize preservation of open space and an open view shed. Members of the City Council, Thank you so much for your time. I hope that you will see fit to approve this Conditional Use Permit Sincerely, Murat Akalin MD 1212 Flora Road Arroyo Grande, CA 93420
Isaman design, Inc.2420 Broad StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401Phone:Fax:805/544.5672805/544.5642w w w .isamandesign.comARCHITECTAKALIN: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)ARROYO GRANDE, CA6/7/2018SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"FLORA ROADFLOR
A
RO
A
D FLORA ROADPROPOSEDADULOCATIONUSABLE AG LAND4.5 ACRESFLORA ROADFLOR
A
R
O
A
D FLORA ROADUSABLE AG LAND3.7 ACRESFENCEPROPERTY LINESETBACKUSABLEAG LANDNBEFORE AKALINS- DOUBLE DRIVEWAY (ORPHANED TRIANGLES OF LAND BETWEEN)- FENCE AT ROAD (USABLE LAND LEFT OUTSIDE OF FENCE)- FENCE AT HOUSEUSABLE SF/ACRE: 161,005 SF / 3.7 ACRESEXHIBIT (1)AFTER AKALINS- SINGLE DRIVEWAY- ALL LAND ENCOMPASSED BY NEW PERIMETER FENCE- REMOVED FENCE AT HOUSE- ADDED ADUUSABLE SF/ACRE: 195,367 SF / 4.5 ACRES
Isaman design, Inc.2420 Broad StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401Phone:Fax:805/544.5672805/544.5642w w w .isamandesign.comARCHITECTAKALIN: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)ARROYO GRANDE, CA6/7/2018SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"EXISTINGMAIN HOUSELOCATIONFLORA ROADFLOR
A
RO
A
D FLORA ROADPROPOSEDADULOCATIONFLORA ROADFLOR
A
R
O
A
D FLORA ROADHORSESCHICKENSORCHARDGOATSNEXHIBIT (2)CURRENT USES- CHICKENS (EVERYWHERE)- HORSES (GRAZING)- ORCHARD (REVIVED & EXPANDED 20 % AFTER PURCHASE)FUTURE USES- CHICKENS (EVERYWHERE)- HORSES (GRAZING)- ORCHARD (CONTINUED 20% EXPANSION PER YEAR)- GOATS (MILK & CHEESE PRODUCTION)
Isaman design, Inc.2420 Broad StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401Phone:Fax:805/544.5672805/544.5642w w w .isamandesign.comARCHITECTAKALIN: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)ARROYO GRANDE, CA6/7/2018SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"30'-0"NEW ADU LOCATION(COLLABORATION WITH NEIGHBORS)PUSH SOUTH ON PROPERTY AS FARAS SETBACK WILL ALLOWPG & E RIGHT-OF-WAY EASEMENT5 FOOT STRIP ON CENTER LINEEXISTINGMAIN HOUSELOCATIONFLORA ROADFLOR
A
RO
A
D FLORA ROAD30'-0"PROPOSEDADULOCATION30'-0"ORIGINAL PROPOSEDADU LOCATIONEXISTINGMAIN HOUSELOCATIONFLORA ROADFLOR
A
R
O
A
D FLORA ROAD30'-0"PROPOSEDADULOCATIONNEXHIBIT (3)ORIGINALLY PROPOSED LOCATION- NEAR FLORA ROAD TO MAXIMIZE AG USEAGE- NEAR FLORA ROAD TO MINIMIZE DRIVEWAY- NEAR FLORA ROAD FOR EASE OF UTILITY CONNECTIONNEW PROPOSED LOCATION- RELOCATE IN ORDER TO PRESERVE NEIGHBOR VIEWS- NEAR FLORA ROAD TO MAXIMIZE AG USAGE- NEAR FLORA ROAD TO MINIMIZE DRIVEWAY- CLOSER TO UTILITY CONNECTION
Isaman design, Inc.2420 Broad StreetSan Luis Obispo, CA 93401Phone:Fax:805/544.5672805/544.5642w w w .isamandesign.comARCHITECTAKALIN: ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT (ADU)ARROYO GRANDE, CA6/7/2018SCALE 1/4" = 1'-0"ORIGINALLY PROPOSED (ARC APPROVED)- STUCCO FINISH EXTERIOR- COMPOSITE SHINGLE & STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFINGPREFERRED (ARC SUGGESTIONS)- BOARD & BATTEN EXTERIOR SIDING- COMPOSITE SHINGLE & STANDING SEAM METAL ROOFINGEXHIBIT (4)